When I was bored one night, I asked a friend to give me a word, and that word was 'fluff'. I typed the word, and carried on from that into a complex psychological situation and my analysis, completely generated by myself.
Fluff, strands of fur, they are usually gathered in abundance on an animal, it can be messy and spaghetti-like, and no one person normally will pay attention to a strand of hair or fur because they find it unique. Like messy fur or hair, people don't like dealing with it and can described to share the appearance of spaghetti. I've come to know for a long while now that some people have problems that I like to call the 'Moldy Spaghetti Complication', where one thing is just so distorted and warped out of a common consensus of what is right or beneficial to given person, that a moderately wise person who wasn't previously involved in the complex would rather keep that status as an unactive variable. Their first instinct to the critical zenith of the situation, being the cause that the conflicted one brought it up to them in the first place, would be to - in the most kind way possible, wiggle their way out of the situation, kindness used out of true personality of the person, or as a means to avoid further discomfort to both people. Sometimes fabricating a response that is not true is used. Generally these common methods of convincing detatchment work and widely vary on execution and is purely situational.
When this fails however, it could be that the previously unhampered person could have failed to integrate their common sense and kindness or use of empty-hearted manipulative words into the mentality of the afflicted, which would cause a massive crapstorm. Either the person with the problem saw through the lie (this would take them an analysis of knowledge and behavior patterns of the person they're talking to), or is over persistent out of desperation and will continue pressuring for assistance from the other.
In the first of the latter given potential situations, the conflicted would be dismayed and upset that they were lied to, receiving it as a rude way of trying to wiggle out of a situation. In the second situation, the person is still feeling the loss of comfort and control of their existing problem, and is one problem less than the last given possibility, aka the rage of identifying a lie. So, a discovered lie can cause another problem, but a lie undetected can avoid it entirely. If the desperation of the other is high enough, they will continue trying to convince you to help them until you give in and let yourself sink into the moldy spaghetti, or you are pushed to try giving more just and righteous reasoning - or if you lack that, or they simply can't understand it, you will be pushed closer into having to fabricate a lie, which would be causing both people problems now, and raising the stakes that the original problem-bearer would detect a lie, a probability raised by the simplicity of the fact that for each lie given with a rate for being detected, there is more information to be evaluated as right or wrong.
Lies: 1 Detectrate: Y.
Lies: 2 Detectrate: Y squared. (or some other increment of increasing quantity)
It is very hard to put these situations into sense through numbers, so it is best to understand that the brain is a complex pile of folded squishiness that runs on chemicals and many electrical signals. To put it bluntly, the brain is complex and numbers are very, very specific. Numbers are what they are, and normal Human thinking is very compressed. It is best to understand that there is a dynamic relationship that is very situational, such as in a lie to lie identification ratio, which means that it is impossible to put a number on a detection rate, but rather, understand that for every X (lie), there is a natural and logical increase in Y (chance of lie being detected)
